Repository of colleges and higher education institutions

Show document
A+ | A- | Help | SLO | ENG

Title:Upravljanje krajinskega parka Tivoli, Rožnik in Šišenski hrib : diplomsko delo
Authors:ID Regina, Sara (Author)
ID Ferk, Petra (Mentor) More about this mentor... New window
Files:.pdf RAZ_Regina_Sara_i2018.pdf (644,25 KB)
MD5: AFFA0997DABD653436A30459B5DF9475
 
Language:Slovenian
Work type:Bachelor thesis/paper
Typology:2.11 - Undergraduate Thesis
Organization:FDŠ - Nova Univerza - The Graduate School of Government and European Studies
Abstract:Učinkovito upravljanje zavarovanih območij narave je ključnega pomena za ohranjanje biotske pestrosti, ta pa je nepogrešljiva za človeka. Rastline in živali nam nudijo različne ekosistemske storitve, kot so proizvajanje kisika in poraba ogljikovega dioksida, čiščenje zraka, zagotavljanje hrane in še bi lahko naštevali. V Sloveniji imamo, kljub svoji majhnosti, veliko zavarovanih območij, ki so zaščitena tako z evropsko kot tudi z nacionalno in lokalno zakonodajo. Kot širša zavarovana območja štejejo krajinski parki, za katere Zakon o ohranjanju narave predvideva, da se jih upravlja po modelu javnega zavoda, režijskega obrata ali koncesije, pri čemer je koncesionar lahko pravna oseba javnega ali zasebnega prava. Primera upravljanja prek režijskega obrata v Sloveniji nimamo, druga dva pa imata vsak svoje prednosti in slabosti. V nalogi smo na podlagi analize treh primerov proučili vse načine upravljanja, ki so prisotni v praksi: Krajinski park Tivoli, Rožnik in Šišenski hrib upravlja koncesionar, ki je oseba javnega prava, Krajinski park Sečoveljske soline pa upravlja koncesionar, ki je zasebna družba, Krajinski park Ljubljansko barje ima za upravljavca javni zavod, ki ga je ustanovila država oziroma Ministrstvo za okolje in prostor. V nalogi smo iskali odgovor na raziskovalno vprašanje, ali je izbrani model upravljanja s Krajinskim parkom Tivoli, Rožnik in Šišenski hrib najprimernejši. Rezultati analize so pokazali, da ima vsak od modelov svoje prednosti in pomanjkljivosti.
Place of publishing:Kranj
Place of performance:Kranj
Publisher:[S. Regina]
Year of publishing:2018
Year of performance:2018
Number of pages:VII, 58 str.
PID:20.500.12556/ReVIS-5310 New window
COBISS.SI-ID:2053221046 New window
UDC:712:005(497.4)(043.2)
Note:Dipl. delo 1. stopnje bolonjskega študija;
Publication date in ReVIS:30.10.2018
Views:3499
Downloads:143
Metadata:XML DC-XML DC-RDF
:
Copy citation
  
Share:Bookmark and Share


Hover the mouse pointer over a document title to show the abstract or click on the title to get all document metadata.

Secondary language

Language:Slovenian
Abstract:Effective management of protect areas in nature is of key importance for conservation of biodiversity, which is indispensable to the human being. Plants and animals provide various services of the ecosystem, such as oxygen production and consumption of carbon dioxide, air purification, a food source and much more. Despite its size, Slovenia has several protected areas, secured by the European as well as national and local legislation. Regional parks are classified as larger protected areas, and the Nature Conservation Act (ZON) defines the parks are managed by the model of a public institution, general facility or concession; the concession holder can either act as a legal entity of public or private law. There are no examples of general facility management in Slovenia, and the remaining two list advantages and disadvantages. This thesis studies by analysis three examples of each management option, present in practice: the Tivoli, Rožnik and Šišenski Hrib Regional Park is managed by a concession holder as a legal entity of public law, the Sečoveljske Soline Regional Park is managed by a concession holder, which acts as a private company, and the Ljubljansko Barje Regional Park, managed by a public institution, established by the government or the Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning. This thesis attempts at answering the research question, whether the selected management model in the Tivoli, Rožnik and Šišenski Hrib Regional Park is the most appropriate one. The analysis of the results introduced advantages and disadvantages of the each management model.
Keywords:Krajinski park Tivoli, Rožnik in Šišenski hrib, Krajinski park Ljubljansko barje, Krajinski park Sečoveljske soline


Back